JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Bridging Borders: Tala’s Journey
Brief #119 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Aziza Taslaq
As the world grapples with ongoing conflicts and divisions, stories like Tala’s offer a beacon of hope, illustrating the transformative power of empathy, collaboration, and human connection.
Police Reform in Two Cities: Baltimore and Minneapolis
Brief #155 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
In the United States, the path to police reform has been a complex and diverse journey, significantly influenced by local contexts and challenges. By examining the police reform efforts in two cities—Baltimore and Minneapolis—we can gain insights into the differences in approach and outcomes in these cities.
A Primer on Our Housing Crisis
Brief #59 – Economic Policy Brief
by Devyne Byrd
Although the United States is a global economic force, its economic prosperity has not extended to those citizens who are suffering from a dire housing crisis. As wages have not risen to align with these issues, many Americans have been priced out of both the homebuying and rental process, leading to mass evictions, foreclosures, and homelessness.
A Hard Road for a Young Palestinian Mother
Brief #118 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Aziza Taslaq
In the heart of Bethlehem, where echoes of history resonate through the cobblestone streets, lived Salma, a 33-year-old mother devoted to her young daughter. Salma’s life, once painted with the hues of contentment, took a dark turn on April 17th, 2023 – a date etched in her family’s memory as Prisoner’s Day.
Trump and the E. Jean Carroll Case
Brief #121 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
On January 26, 2024, a New York jury ruled that Trump was responsible for paying journalist Elizabeth Jean Carroll (usually referred to as E. Jean Carroll) $83.3 million in damages: a huge legal setback for Trump as he faces a total 91 state and federal charges.
Is Russia’s president Putin afraid of Alexei Navalny? (Part 2)
Brief #117 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Yelena Korshunov
After 19 days, Alexei Navalny was found above the Arctic Circle in correctional colony # 3 “Polar Wolf” in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region. This colony has always been famous for the fact that prisoners were sent there for “breaking.” However, Russia’s current president stuffs them with his political opponents.
Does Nikki Haley Have a Shot?
Brief #120 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
Ron DeSantis’ withdrawal makes the Republican primary a two-person race between Nikki Haley and Trump. Despite Haley facing challenges, her current strategy exposes potential weaknesses in Trump’s candidacy that the Democratic nominee, likely Biden, could exploit.
Carefree Use of Groundwater Is Making Us Thirsty
Brief #164 – Environment Policy Brief
by : Todd J. Broadman
There is a depletion of groundwater in the U.S… When it comes to groundwater depletion, short-term economics and corporate profits are ushered along without much caution or environmental guardrails. In that respect, U.S. aquifers are viewed much like carbon reserves – there for the taking.
Journalism Rights Should Matter Like Other Human Rights
Brief #154 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Diing Magot
Journalism is currently under threat, in today’s world people are still confused about the role of a journalist in a democratic society. Access to information is a challenge and journalists continuously work in an environment that can lead to being harassed threatened, jailed or even killed.
Redistricting and Gerrymandering Effects
Redistricting and Gerrymandering Effects
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #112 | By: Inijah Quadri| December 4, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/
__________________________________
Redistricting is a democratic process involving the redrawing of electoral district boundaries to reflect population shifts. This ensures that each district has roughly equal population numbers, maintaining the principle of “one person, one vote.” However, when redistricting is manipulated for political gains, known as gerrymandering, it becomes a contentious issue. Gerrymandering distorts the electoral map by creating districts that favor a particular party, undermining the principles of fair representation and democratic governance. This practice can lead to legislators who are more concerned with satisfying the extremes of their party rather than the broader electorate, thus polarizing political discourse.
Analysis
Gerrymandering often involves tactics like “cracking,” where a voting group is split among several districts to dilute their influence, and “packing,” where a group is concentrated in one district to reduce their influence in others. Such practices have been observed in states like Texas, Maryland, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, leading to disproportionate representation. The impact is profound: elections become less competitive, voter disillusionment rises, and elected officials face less accountability. Gerrymandering not only sways the outcomes of elections but also shapes legislative priorities, often not aligned with the actual needs or beliefs of the populace.
Gerrymandering also frequently results in the division of communities with shared interests or identities, particularly impacting minority groups. By diluting their voting power, these practices hinder their ability to elect representatives who advocate for their needs. The long-term effects include reduced political engagement and a sense of disenfranchisement among these communities.
Legal Challenges and Reforms
The U.S. Supreme Court has historically addressed issues of racial gerrymandering but has been more hesitant in cases of partisan gerrymandering. Of course, the legal landscape is complex, with various rulings and standards applied inconsistently across states. However, there’s a growing trend toward reform. This is why states like Colorado and Michigan, among a few others, have established independent commissions to oversee redistricting, aiming to remove partisan bias.
Technological Advancements
Advances in data analytics and geographic information systems (GIS) have transformed redistricting into a precise science. Parties can use detailed demographic data to create highly optimized electoral maps. While these technologies offer the potential for fairer redistricting, they also raise ethical concerns about privacy and the manipulation of electoral boundaries.
Conclusion
The issues of redistricting and gerrymandering are issues affecting democratic governance in the United States. While gerrymandering presents significant challenges to the principles of fair representation and electoral integrity, there are pathways to reform. Legal battles, technological advancements, and heightened public awareness and engagement are crucial in shaping a future where redistricting processes are transparent, fair, and reflective of the true democratic will of the people.
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice (www.brennancenter.org): Advocates for fair redistricting practices.
- League of Women Voters (www.lwv.org): Provides analysis and resources on gerrymandering cases and their impacts.
- Princeton Gerrymandering Project (gerrymander.princeton.edu): Offers educational materials and interactive maps explaining gerrymandering.
Republicans Bash Republicans
Republicans Bash Republicans
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #111 | By: William Bourque | November 30, 2023
Photo taken from: https://news.yahoo.com/
__________________________________
With the GOP in seemingly everlasting disarray, Speaker Mike Johnson has somehow already managed to land himself in a cauldron of hot water. News has recently come out about Johnson’s financial situation, or lack thereof. It has been reported that Johnson does not have a personal bank account or savings, which many Americans find incredibly strange. He hasn’t reported any investments or large savings bonds either, which makes many wonder about where he gets money to send his children to college or save for retirement.
For the rest of the GOP, it seems that Congress has become the perfect place to stage a Royal Rumble, with several high-profile dustups amongst their ranks. For starters, Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy can’t seem to keep his hands to himself, allegedly elbowing Congressman Tim Burchett in the back. Burchett has been a McCarthy detractor for some time and was one of the 8 Republican members who voted to remove McCarthy. The entire incident occurred in a tunnel beneath the Capitol, with several reporters and aides witnessing the exchange. GOP sources say that both Burchett and McCarthy have shown lots of frustration with each other in Conference meetings, sometimes coming to the point of screaming matches.
The other coming together was between Senator Markwayne Mullin and Teamsters President Sean O’ Brien during a HELP committee meeting. An ongoing Twitter (X) beef spilled into reality and the two of them almost duked it out on the committee floor. The beef is derived from several tweets from O’Brien which made fun of Mullin’s height—he was caught standing on a stepstool during a debate to appear taller. Senator Bernie Sanders acted as the adult in the room, admonishing Mullin for his un-senatorial behavior.
Back on the House side of things, Representative George Santos is facing a slate of indictments related to fraud that he engaged in during his campaign. The House recently voted to expel Santos, but the measure was voted down after a handful of Democrats stood by the rule of law, arguing that Santos deserved due process. Notably, they also said that if convicted that they would vote to expel, but not until the courts had been able to determine fact from fiction. Since then, the House Ethics Committee has published a shocking report detailing the hundreds of violations Santos has committed. Many members who said they would wait for rule of law have now said Santos should resign or be expelled.
The GOP can’t seem to keep members in line or maintain a united front on anything, which makes it hard to imagine they have any chance of keeping the House or flipping the Senate. As always, we expect the presidency to be close…even if Trump runs from behind bars. Watch this space to see how Speaker Johnson struggles through more spending fights in the new year—and maybe has to referee a few brawls in conference meetings.
A Palestinian Prisoner’s Experience
A Palestinian Prisoner’s Experience
Foreign Policy Brief #102 | By: Aziza Taslaq | November 30, 2023
Photo taken from: https://english.elpais.com/
__________________________________
In Jenin, a resilient city in the West Bank, we find Ahmad, a soul molded by the complexities of life and the echoes of a turbulent past. His journey, marked by hardship, unfolds against the backdrop of the Israeli Occupation, a tale intricately woven with personal sacrifice, resilience, and a fervent yearning for justice.
Ahmad, an alumnus of Al-Quds Open University with a degree in Marketing, bears the indelible scars of an encounter with the Israeli Occupation a decade ago. In 2013, he was arrested without a specific charge and plunged into the abyss of administrative arrest. For two long years, he languished behind prison walls, a captive of circumstance. His confinement was a canvas painted with isolation – no glimpse of family, no avenues of communication. Unjustly beaten, Ahmad’s spirit weathered the storm of arbitrary oppression.
Upon his release, the embrace of sunlight felt like liberation. Kneeling on the soil, he prayed, and in his father’s tears and his mother’s gaze, he discovered the true essence of freedom. Yet, the psychological shackles persisted, camouflaged beneath the veneer of a seemingly everyday life.
In the wake of the recent events post-7th October, Ahmad, now a storyteller of his people’s strife, delineates the harsh reality. For him, it’s a tale of Israeli Occupation that eclipses homes, generations, mental well-being, and joy. “We live in the West Bank, and there’s no Hamas here,” Ahmad emphasizes, questioning the inexplicable treatment meted out by the Israeli occupation.
Defying the dehumanizing discourse, Ahmad disputes the terrorist label unjustly applied to his people, asserting, “We transcend mere humanity,” highlighting the inherent resilience and resistance woven into their identity. Ahmad raises a crucial question: is it rational to succumb to psychological projection? They aim to subject us to the difficulties that they themselves endured over the years.
The impact on Ahmad’s life extends beyond the psychological realm; it seeps into the economic fabric. The agony and death in Gaza and the West Bank have reverberated, causing the economic upheaval that cost Ahmad his job. The company, unable to navigate the tumult, left its employees stranded.
Amid this turmoil, Ahmad calls for a truce and a ceasefire. In contemplating solutions, he cautiously considers a two-state interim arrangement, recognizing the impracticality of coexisting identities. “Either we or they,” he ponders, acknowledging the complexity of a region where narratives clash like titans.
Ahmad concludes: “Let’s name things by their real names; it’s an enduring 75-year occupation and persecution, spanning beyond the confines of Palestine and Israel, encompassing even the Hamas-free West Bank. It’s vital to redefine the narrative; what might be labeled as terror is, in essence, our resistance and self-defense when confronted with the ceaseless pain and suffering inflicted upon us. Beyond the geographical battle lies a quest for identity, justice, and recognition in a world that often turns a deaf ear to our plight.”
Ahmad’s narrative reflects his aspirations and struggles in a world that doesn’t know a lot about Palestinian youth and their stories.
The History of the Israel-Hamas War Thus Far
The History of the Israel-Hamas War Thus Far
Foreign Policy Brief #101 | By: Abran C | November 30, 2023
Photo taken from: https://foreignpolicy.com/
__________________________________
Start of the Current War
On October 7 2023, Hamas militants carried out an attack on Israel that resulted in the deaths of 1,200 civilian Israeli’s and over 200 hostages taken into the Gaza strip, most of whom have yet to be released. Following the attacks, Israel responded by launching “Operation Swords of Iron,” with the stated goal of eliminating Hamas. It imposed a complete siege on Gaza, blocking food, water and fuel from entering, and launched a ground offensive that saw its troops enter deep into the besieged territory. Amid the bombardment, Gaza residents were directed by Israel to evacuate their homes in the north and move southwards towards the strip’s border with Egypt. Israel’s war on the strip has resulted in the deaths of over 13,000 Palestinian civilians, with thousands more missing and believed to be buried under rubble, and in hospitals which continue to report deaths from wounds, disease, starvation, and thirst creating a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
Background on What Has Happened In Gaza
The Gaza Strip is the smaller of the two internationally recognized Palestinian territories that is situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is 25 miles long and 5 miles wide, it is bordered by Israel to the east and north and Egypt in the southwest. Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 to 2005, when it then withdrew its troops and settlers from within the strip. Though it has continued to exert complete control over the territory’s sea, airspace and land crossings, effectively confining Gaza’s two million residents within a fence that surrounds the limits of the strip. Israel acknowledges the blockade and walling off of the Gaza strip and its residents and claims that it is necessary for security purposes. The vast majority of Gaza’s residents are descendants of refugees whose ancestors either fled or were forced out of their homes decades ago in what is now Israel proper in an event referred to by Palestinians as the Nakba. Roughly half of Gaza’s population is children, the besieged territory is also one of the most densely populated places on earth with about 42,000 people per square mile. Israel has agreed to four hour pauses in bombing daily and a trickle of humanitarian aid that the UN has said is only a drop in the ocean compared to what’s actually needed.
The United Nations has referred to Israel’s actions to besiege and attack the Gaza strip indiscriminately as a form of collective punishment and illegal under international humanitarian law. The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has reported that more than 1.7 million people in Gaza are now internally displaced and without homes to return to. More than half a million people are currently seeking refuge in facilities run by the UN’s Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Many, if not most, will be unable to return home because of the vast damage in the north and the continued presence of Israeli troops there.The UN and most major international human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights watch have said that Israel’s forcible displacement of people from their homes amounts to war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
The Hostage Exchange Deal
Last Tuesday, after 46 days of Israel’s offensive, a deal brokered by Qatar set in place a four day pause in fighting and secured the release of 50 Israeli hostages in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. Those released by both sides are intended to be women and children. In 2014, when Israel last launched a major land invasion in Gaza, it took 49 days for both sides to implement a ceasefire deal, but that brought major fighting to an end for several years.
As we go to press, after 3 days the terms of the hostage exchange arrangement appear to be holding. Hamas has so far released 60 hostages including Israeli women and children, Thai nationals and one Filipino hostage. Israel in turn has released 180 Palestinian prisoners, mainly women and children and youth under the age of 18. In addition the number of humanitarian assistance trucks allowed into Gaza has been increased to 100 daily, though that amount is still far below the amount of aid that is needed.
Recently the 4 day pause has been extended by three days; but no one is sure what will happen after the end of the pause on Thursday. Israel has intimated it is willing to allow the pause to continue on a day to day basis as long as Hamas releases more hostages each day. Hamas may go along with this as it has been badly hurt by Israeli bombing and needs more time to regroup. But who knows?
International Responses to the War
Much of the world condemned the attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2023. In the wake of the attacks the US and many Western countries have expressed unequivocal support for Israel. Leaders of major Western powers, the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, have all since visited Israel and pledged military support. The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a plan to provide $14.3 billion in military funding to Israel and President Biden has asked Congress to approve a broader $106 billion spending package for military funding to Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine though the wider spending bill has yet to be approved. Additionally, President Biden said previously that there was “no possibility” of a permanent ceasefire and the European Union has also refrained from calling for an end to hostilities and up until the current ceasefire, suspended all humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territories.
Conversely, much of the global south has been far more critical of Israel’s response to the attacks, and demonstrates the ever growing division in the international community. Though many countries around the world expressed sympathy for Israel after the attacks on October 7th, Israel has since also received international condemnation for its bombardment of Gaza and the resulting enormously high civilian death toll. A growing number of countries have severed ties or recalled their representatives from Israel. Bolivia and South Africa have severed diplomatic ties with Israel, while Bahrain, Belize, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Jordan and Turkey have all recalled their ambassadors from the country and emphasized the need for a cease-fire and urged the Israeli government to follow international law.
Additionally, diplomats from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico have strongly condemned Israel, calling for an immediate end to hostilities. Brazilian President Lula da Silva has called for Hamas to release all of the Israeli hostages and has said that Israel in its response is committing a genocide in Gaza.The UN secretary General Antonio Gutteres told reporters on Monday that Gaza has become a “graveyard for children”, with more than 4,100 killed since Israel’s bombardment of Gaza began. The Secretary General also detailed that more journalists and United Nations aid workers have been killed over a four-week period than in any conflict in at least three decades, “more United Nations aid workers have been killed than in any comparable period in the history of our organization” he said.
Fall Out of the War
The Israeli parliament recently passed an amendment to the country’s counterterrorism law that introduces the consumption of terrorist materials online as a criminal offense. The standard for what constitutes terrorist material is vague and dozens of arrests have already been made of Israeli Arab citizens. The Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel has slammed the law as “one of the most intrusive and draconian legislative measures ever passed by the Knesset since it makes thoughts subject to criminal punishment”.
Islamophobia and antisemitism are seeing sharp increases across the US after the outset of the war between Israel and Hamas last month. According to a new report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization received what they called an unprecedented spike in requests for help, revealing that the recent increase in Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment across the US mark a 216% increase over the previous year. The Anti-Defamation League reported a nearly 400% increase in antisemitic incidents reported this year over last year. Meanwhile republican presidential candidates such as Ron DeSantis have added to the growing xenophobia with comments such as that the United States should not take in any Palestinian refugees if they flee the Gaza Strip because they “are all antisemitic”, and actions like the republican led House vote onTuesday to censure Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who is the only Palestinian American in Congress over criticism of Israel. The Biden administration has warned schools and colleges that they must take immediate action to stop antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses, citing an alarming rise in threats and harassment.
This war and its ramifications is a developing story and will continue to be reported on.
Streaming Platforms and Their Impact on Global Television Culture
Streaming Platforms and Their Impact on Global Television Culture
Social Justice Policy Brief #152 | By: Arvind Salem | November 30, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/
__________________________________
The advent of streaming platforms such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ has catalyzed a transformative shift in the global television and entertainment industry. These platforms have redefined not just how content is consumed but also how it is produced and distributed, impacting the landscape far beyond traditional television.
Analysis
The streaming model has fundamentally redefined television content production and consumption, veering away from traditional TV’s episodic release patterns. Platforms like Netflix and Hulu often release entire seasons at once, which has revolutionized storytelling techniques and audience engagement strategies. This method of content delivery caters to the modern viewer’s preference for binge-watching, thereby creating a new norm in media consumption.
In addition to changing how content is delivered, streaming services have played a pivotal role in democratizing the media landscape. By providing a platform for a diverse array of voices and stories, these services have enabled content creators from various backgrounds to reach a global audience. This shift is clearly demonstrated in the international success of shows from various cultures, breaking down the barriers imposed by traditional media channels. For example, Netflix’s investment in original content from countries like South Korea and India has led to global hits like “Squid Game” and “Sacred Games”.
While streaming services have broadened the horizons of content creation and accessibility, they inherently possess an element of exclusivity. This exclusivity not only encompasses economic factors but also technological accessibility. For instance, in areas with limited technological infrastructure, the impact of streaming services is significantly diminished, highlighting a digital divide in media consumption. The requirement for a subscription fee, consistent internet access, and suitable streaming devices places these services out of reach for certain segments of the population. This exclusivity is further compounded in regions with limited or expensive internet access. Furthermore, some TV subscription models that heavily prioritize streaming can inadvertently minimize access to traditional broadcast TV, which remains a crucial medium for information and entertainment in many communities. Therefore, while streaming platforms have democratized content creation, they also present new barriers to content consumption.
The transition from cable TV to streaming services has also significantly impacted advertising and revenue models. This shift is prompting a reevaluation of how content creators monetize their work. The decline in traditional advertising revenue has led to innovative funding models, including partnerships with brands, sponsored content, and even interactive advertising where viewers can engage directly with products. With many streaming platforms adopting ad-free or limited-ad models, traditional advertising strategies have become less effective, prompting advertisers to explore new and more integrated ways to reach their audience.
In addition to transforming content delivery and advertising strategies, streaming platforms have innovated revenue generation models. Unlike traditional TV reliant on advertising and cable subscription fees, streaming services primarily generate revenue through direct subscription fees from users. These platforms offer various tiered pricing models, allowing users to choose based on their needs, such as the number of screens, resolution quality, and ad-free viewing experiences. Additionally, some platforms generate revenue through content licensing deals, where they allow other services to host their original content for a fee. This multifaceted approach to revenue has enabled streaming platforms to maintain a steady income stream while offering a diverse range of content.
However, the rapid growth of the streaming market presents its own set of challenges. One such challenge is the potential for increased monopolization in the industry. As a few large platforms dominate the market, there are concerns about reduced competition and its impact on creativity, pricing, and access to diverse content. Another major concern is market saturation and the sustainability of content production models. As more entities enter the streaming space, there is a risk of an oversupply of content, potentially leading to a decline in originality and quality. Moreover, the ease of access to a vast library of content has implications for viewer behavior. Issues such as increased screen time and the potential for reinforcing echo chambers through personalized content recommendations are emerging concerns. These personalized algorithms, while enhancing user experience, may also limit exposure to diverse perspectives and content.
The rise of streaming platforms has also significantly impacted the traditional movie theater industry. This transition raises critical questions about the sustainability of the traditional cinema model. As streaming platforms experiment with simultaneous releases or exclusive streaming debuts, movie theaters must innovate to provide experiences that cannot be replicated at home, such as advanced screening technologies and interactive viewer experiences. With an increasing number of films being released directly on streaming platforms, sometimes concurrently with or shortly after their theater releases, movie theaters are experiencing a notable decline in attendance and revenue. This shift challenges the long-standing movie release model, potentially reducing the exclusivity period of theatrical releases. While this provides viewers with immediate access to new films from the comfort of their homes, it raises questions about the future of cinema experiences and the economic sustainability of movie theaters. The streaming era, thus, not only revolutionizes content consumption patterns but also reshapes the entire landscape of the film industry.
Looking forward, the key to the success of streaming platforms will lie in their ability to balance content diversity with quality. Furthermore, these platforms will need to navigate the challenges of global content regulation, which varies significantly across different countries. Adapting to these regulatory environments while maintaining a consistent quality of service will be crucial for their global expansion and sustainability. They must also adapt to evolving technological landscapes, particularly in the management of viewer data and privacy. As the digital world continues to evolve, streaming platforms must navigate these challenges responsibly to remain sustainable and relevant in the ever-changing entertainment industry.
Engagement Resources:
- The Nielsen Company (https://www.nielsen.com/): Provides insights and data about what people watch and buy, with specific research on streaming trends and viewer habits.
- The Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/): Offers studies and reports on internet and technology, including the impact of streaming services on media consumption.
- The Television Academy (https://www.emmys.com/): Recognizes excellence in television and has adapted its award categories to include streaming content, reflecting the industry’s evolution.
- Cord Cutters News (https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/): Provides news, tips, and information about streaming services and the changing television landscape.
- TechCrunch (https://techcrunch.com/): Offers the latest technology news and information, including developments in the streaming industry.
UAW Strike Ends, but at What Cost?
UAW Strike Ends, but at What Cost?
Economic Policy Brief #58 | By: Arvind Salem| November 26, 2023
Featured Photo: npr.org
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
The United Auto Workers (UAW) engaged in a 6 week strike that has had serious ripple effects across the U.S. economy at a critical moment for labor relations in the United States. The strike, focused mainly on recovering benefits lost from concessions auto workers made in 2008, has played out at a critical point: multiple other large unions also engaged in large strikes during this period (including perhaps most famously screenwriters And actors in Hollywood) and both leading presidential candidates (Trump and Biden) are jockeying to establish their position on this issue. Readers interested in understanding in a deeper analysis of the context, demands, and political complexities associated with this strike may wish to refer to my earlier brief on the subject.
After 6 weeks of striking, the UAW reached a tentative agreement with all three “big three” automakers: Ford, General Motors (GM), and Stellantis. Importantly, all of the details discussed here are not finalized since they derive from the tentative agreements announced after negotiations between high level union leadership as well as company leadership, which have not been ratified by the union’s leadership and general member base, both of which would need to approve before the agreement is official. However, it is generally expected that these agreements would get ratified.
Ford was the first to reach an agreement, announced on October 25, and has been consistently identified by the union as the most cooperative automaker. The agreement reinstates benefits lost in 2008, including Cost-of-Living adjustments (COLA) and a three-year Wage Progression, increased wages, as well as ending unfair wage tiers. Additionally, the agreement includes heightened retirement benefits and a right to strike over plant closures, which was the first time the union was able to obtain a provision like this in its history. The gains in the deal are valued at more than four times the gains from the 2019 contract, showing that this drawn out process appears to have led to increased gains for workers. Additionally, Ford’s workers will go back to work while the ratification process takes place. This is likely to pressure the other two companies, who wouldn’t want their competitor to have an advantage while they stall on union negotiations.
Stellantis was the second to reach an agreement, on October 28, 2023. The details of this deal aren’t as publicized, but they are mostly expected to mirror the Ford deal, especially in regards to wages and COLA, which in total could raise wages over 30% during the life of the contract. Most surprisingly, Stellantis agreed to reopen a plant in Illinois, which had closed February 28, costing the jobs of 1,200 workers. After this deal, the UAW expanded their strike on GM to pressure them to arrive at a quick agreement.
GM finally caved two days later on October 30th, and reached an agreement including broadly similar terms to those negotiated by Ford and Stellantis. The agreement includes a 25% hourly pay raise and COLA through April 2028. The agreement removes several wage tiers and brings additional workers into the agreement, including workers making batteries for GM’s electric vehicles. With this agreement, UAW declared that the strike was over, but did not give a definitive date for when workers would return.
Policy Analysis:
The resolution was a resounding win for the UAW and unions as a whole, especially coming days after the resolution of the strike in Hollywood, with President Biden using the opportunity to visit the Union leaders. In this visit, he emphasized his support for them, and used the occasion to paint a stark contrast with Donald Trump. Notably, the union leadership expressed positive sentiment for President Biden but has still refrained from endorsing the Preident, which they did in 2020, citing the fact that their first priority was on ratifying these deals and that endorsements would come later.
This also showed the power of concentrated union organizing to put big businesses on their heels. Ford said the work stoppage from the strike cost them $1.3 billion, GM said it cost them around $1 billion, and Stellantis didn’t release any figures, but Colin Langan, an auto analyst with Wells Fargo projects that Stellantis lost $750 million throughout the strike. A week before the strike ended, an analysis found that the strike cost the economy $9.3 billion, meaning that by the time it ended its cost to the U.S. economy was likely well over $10 billion. In particular, businesses around Detroit have been hardest hit as well as auto suppliers around the country.
Engagement Resources:
- UAW is the union organizing this strike. Those who sympathize with their cause may wish to donate to this organization.
- Ford has been determined to be the most union friendly out of the three companies. Those who would like to reward them for that practice may wish to support them.
- Joe Biden for President, Joe Biden has shown support for these workers and the union. Readers who agree with his actions in this issue may wish to donate or otherwise contribute to the campaign.
What did Sam Bankman Fried Do and What Does it Mean for Cryptocurrency?
What did Sam Bankman Fried Do and What Does it Mean for Cryptocurrency?
Economic Policy Brief #57 | By: Arvind Salem| November 26, 2023
Photo taken from: npr.org
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
On November 2, 2023, Sam Bankman Fried, the former CEO of FTX, one of the largest cryptocurrency trading companies, was found guilty of fraud and money laundering. Fried was found guilty on 7 counts of fraud, including wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering, all of which he took from customers of FTX for his own personal gain. His sentencing trial will be in March, in addition to his trial regarding allegations of foreign bribery.
This verdict is the conclusion of a yearlong saga that took down FTX, and later its CEO Sam Bankman Fried. In November of 2022, CoinDesk reported that the assets in FTX’s sister firm, Alameda research, also founded by Fried, were mostly in the form of an FTX token, FTT. This led to widespread concerns over FTX’s value due to the clear conflict of interest using FTX’s resources as assets for Alameda, leading to widespread withdrawals from FTX. To fix the crisis, FTX was in negotiations with rival exchange firm, Binance, to acquire its international division, but they backed out after conducting a due diligence study. Compounded with the Alameda research news, this led to mass withdrawals from FTX. These events led FTX to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The nail in the coffin, was a hack that stole $477 million from the company, although that number was arrived at by external analysts and not released by FTX themselves. Throughout the whole way, the company committed fraud to convince skeptical investors that the company was in good financial health, including using inflated valuations of speculative assets, and most glaringly hiding huge amounts of missing money, which we now know went to Fried, using fake balance sheets.
Shortly after, a class action lawsuit was filed in Florida against celebrity promoters of FTX, arguing that they misled customers by lending credibility to unregistered securities. If they were going to promote these securities, they were required to disclose the details of their financial agreements governing the endorsements under Florida law. FTX had a large number of celebrity endorsers including famous athletes Tom Brady, Stephen Curry, and Naomi Osaka, and most famously Shark Tank host Kevin O’Leary. The exchange was also famously close to closing a $100 million deal with Taylor Swift, who backed out after conducting her own due diligence study. This September, Jacksonville Jaguars quarterback Trevor Lawrence, and YouTube influencers Tom Nash and Kevin Paffrath all reached settlements concerning their endorsements of FTX.
For a month after FTX collapsed, it was unclear if FTX’s failure was due to any criminal activity from management, specifically its CEO, but in December 2022, it was announced that Sam Bankman Fried would face both federal civil and criminal charges for fraud and diverting FTX’s money for his own personal gain. Among other things, Fried used FTX funds to purchase homes in the Bahamas, sponsor the FTX Arena in Miami, buy a Formula One Racing Team, and contribute $93 million to various political campaigns. During his trial, nearly all of his top aides testified against him in exchange for leniency. He made the bold decision to testify in his own defense, but had his inconsistencies exposed during cross examination when the prosecution attorney brought up the stark contrast between his public and private statements. Additionally, Sam has been in prison since August, due to having his bail revoked after it was determined he tried to intimidate witnesses.
Under new leadership to oversee its post bankruptcy operations, FTX has announced that 90% of its available funds will go to customers. However management could only recover $6.9 billion in funds, leaving them $8.7 billion short to fully compensate their customers.
Policy Analysis:
The collapse of FTX and the corruption exposed in this trial represent the need for tighter regulation fthe cryptocurrency industry. This saga in specific, has drawn Congressional attention and many lawmakers are now recognizing the need for cryptocurrency regulations. Additionally, this highlights how prone to scams and fraud the cryptocurrency industry can be. If seasoned investors like Kevin O Leary were fooled, what hope does the average person have?
However, this trial also bears some good news for cryptocurrency. First of all, regulation might not even be a bad thing. The heightened consumer confidence could lead to more people joining, not less. After all, one of the chief allures of cryptocurrency would remain, the ability for its value to remain independent of any government, but a key downside, its lack of widespread acceptance and security, would be vastly diminished. However, it is worth noting that the idea of bitcoin as a hedge against inflation has taken a large blow due to the fact that bitcoin’s value plummeted, when inflation rose this past year, although that could be due to other factors. Additionally, the industry’s efforts to position Sam Bankman Fried as a bad actor taking advantage of cryptocurrency rather than FTX’s downfall being innate to the industry as a whole appear to be working. The barometer for the cryptocurrency market, bitcoin prices, indicate that cryptocurrency is recovering from its record lows after the collapse of FTX, although it still has not hit its peak that it enjoyed in late 2021 and early 2022. Moreover, companies in the traditional finance industry, like Blackrock and Fidelity, are moving into cryptocurrency: both have applications before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to introduce crypto ETFs, which would allow their customers to gain exposure to the cryptocurrency market in a secure way, and potentially lead to future growth for the cryptocurrency.
Engagement Resources:
- Coinbase is a cryptocurrency trading company that allows users to trade cryptocurrency. Readers interested in looking into other cryptocurrency trading sites other than FTX may wish to visit this site, and decide if it is something they would like to invest in after knowing all of the risks associated with it.
- BlackRock is a company that manages investments for clients that is looking to launch ways for their clients to get involved in the cryptocurrency market in a secure way. Readers who want to explore the cryptocurrency market in the future in a secure way may wish to explore Blackrock’s options in the future after SEC approval.
Be on the Lookout: Politicians Never Stop Campaigning
Be on the Lookout: Politicians Never Stop Campaigning
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #110 | By: Steve Piazza | November 21, 2023
Photo taken from: democraticaudit.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
During the most recent Republican Presidential Debate, candidates made a hard sale expressing their unconditional support of Israel in its conflict with Hamas. In their own fashion, each called for the complete annihilation of Hamas while collectively promoting Republican Party ideological unity.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration, short of calling for a cease-fire, instead preferred leaning into an appeal for a humanitarian pause. Some feel Biden was hoping to tread lightly in order to win over Democrats demanding Israel to stop attacking innocent citizens in Gaza.
On either side of the aisle (WHAT DOES THAT PHRASE MEAN?), it’s clear they’re sending a message of concern about bloodshed. But it’s also understood that both sides aren’t taking any chances of being labeled anti-Semitic which could lead to serious losses at the ballot box.
A tenuous borderland exists between talk of problem solving and mere campaign strategies since the pursuit and/or maintenance of power cannot easily be separated out. In other words, anytime a political figure publicly says or does anything, it cannot be forgotten that it is, at its root, an attempt to secure a vote.
Policy Analysis:
When the Israeli Office of Foreign Affairs released a video that at first appeared as a kids ad for rainbows and unicorns but then quickly grew dark with the tragic statistics of the October 7 Hamas attack, the Likud Party may have indirectly been attempting to increase it’s recently won slight majority in the Knesset. That video has now been removed, but it’s indicative how governments with unlimited resources can easily and swiftly hawk messages to its populace, and beyond, in order to serve both its immediate and long term goals.
That the campaigning never stops certainly applies to how the well endowed parties in the U.S. allow politicians to operate. It’s most apparent in traditional, slick campaign ads over TV and radio, often sounding ominous and urgent regarding a possible takeover by dark forces of opponents.
This type of approach is no accident. Campaigns employ world class advertising agencies, often outside mainstream, to pull out all the stops when it comes to the art of persuasion. After all, appealing to emotions like fear and doom are a very popular, and effective, method.
But placing traditional campaign advertising aside, politicians are forever on the trail. It’s important to remember this during interviews, hearings, or even statements made before boarding a helicopter. Indeed, campaigning comes in all shapes and sizes, including unconventional messagings since suggestive influence is proven more effective than anything blatant.
President Biden’s Oval Office informational address to the nation regarding the White House support of Israel can also be viewed as indirect campaign pitch. Not only could it help him get a leg up on other candidates, it can also be viewed as an opportunity to counter Republican opposition to combining Ukraine and Israel aid.
Candidates themselves can also campaign without even being present. One example of this is Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s recent photo op. His handshake with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does send a message of U.S. support, but it also provides concrete evidence of Biden’s foreign policy involvement, something that will be useful for the President on the campaign trail.
What gets said on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives matters for legislation, but it’s also an opportunity to sell extreme ideology to voters. Republican speakers in support of Missouri Democrat Rashida Tlaib’s censure referenced the holocaust and the destruction of Israel, two emotionally incendiary issues that give fire to their 2024 primary campaigns.
Consider the chest pounding endorsements during the Republican debates that sounded more like a commercial for a household product. The use of phrases like “finish the job once and for all,” “wipe them off the map,” and “stone cold dead.” was akin to conditioning people to remember when it comes time to vote who will get the job done.
Candidates’ responses to events in Israel will most likely steal much of the focus during the election. But what must be taken into consideration is the separation of what’s really happening on the ground and what comes from the mouth of the candidates.
It will be important to observe how less traditional information sources, whether via social media, dissent channels, or town halls, line up with the candidates’ marketing as they follow their paths. More than ever, it’s up to citizens to know campaign rhetoric when they see it, particularly when it’s not during a sensationalized sixty second T.V. spot.
Engagement Resources:
- Here is an article from The Fulcrum, a pro Democracy site, which examines political advertising: https://thefulcrum.us/learning-to-recognize-political-rhetoric
- In the context of Hannah Arendt’s writing, this article reflects the problems related to truth in politics: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/hannah-arendt-and-politics-truth/
- Open Secrets is a resource to help track how money is spent during campaigns: https://www.opensecrets.org/
The New Supreme Court Ethics Code Needs More To Be Effective
The New Supreme Court Ethics Code Needs More To Be Effective
Civil Rights Policy Brief #214 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | November 20, 2023
Photo taken from: forbes.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
On November 13, 2023 the Supreme Court announced that for the first time in its history the Court’s justices would be bound by an ethical code.
While the Supreme Court has never had a binding ethical code for the more than two hundred years of its existence, judges on the lower federal appeals and federal district courts have had to abide by an ethical code. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges for these lower court justices and judges is comprised of five canons. Canon 1 requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2 requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Canon 3 requires a judge to perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently. Canon 4 permits a judge to engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of judicial office. And finally, Canon 5 requires a judge to refrain from political activity. The ethical code announced by the Supreme Court is similar to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges with minor textual changes.
However, the new Supreme Court ethical code is significantly different from the Code of Conduct for United States Judges in one fundamental way – there is no enforcement mechanism if a justice does not abide by one of the Canons. The determination as to whether a justice has followed or violated the canon is left to the individual justice. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis:
The surprise announcement by the Supreme Court of a new self – imposed code of ethics for the Court was likely in response to the numerous scandals that have plagued the court within the last year. Specifically, the revelations of the numerous gifts and perks that Justice Clarence Thomas received and did not disclose as well as an undisclosed trip received by Justice Samuel Alito caused an uproar that some of the decisions by the Justices’ may have been improperly influenced by their relationship with Republican donors. The issuance of this new ethical code raises significant questions as to whether these scandals could have been prevented with this ethical code. A closer examination of the new ethics code reveals that the code is lacking in many areas that may render the code ineffectual in the long run.
One of the many criticisms of the new code raised by legal scholars is that the ethical code has no enforcement mechanism. What this means is that if there is a perception that a justice has violated one of the five canons there is no way to hold the justice accountable and no punishment or corrective course of action will be imposed on the justice. All of the federal appeals court judges and federal district court judges who are bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges face a complaint and grievance process and can have some of decisions made by them, such as whether to recuse from a case, reviewable from another court or panel. These are safeguards that lower federal court judges are subject to to ensure that the federal judges are not the one policing themselves. But these safeguards are noticeably missing from the new code issued by the Supreme Court. It does not seem appropriate that a justice could decide for him or herself whether or not he or she is in compliance with any of the canons. A tenet of the American justice system is that no person should be the judge or jury in his or her own case because of the obvious conflicts of interest in that scenario. That ability to hold a justice accountable is missing from this ethical code, which renders the code nearly worthless as a preventative measure.
The ethics code may also have been issued as a way to prevent Congress from crafting their own ethical code for the Court which would have left the justices helpless as they would not have much input into a code from Congress. But one interesting discussion about a possible ethics code from Congress was whether Congress had the authority to create one and impose it on the Court. Justice Samuel Alito was adamant that Congress could not constitutionally impose one on the Court as he believed only the Court had the power to do so. But in the light of the ethical lapses from Justice Thomas’ behavior and activities, some Justices (Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh) have quietly approved of the idea of an ethics code although they did not mention who should craft it. But history shows that the Supreme Court can write an ethical code with an enforcement mechanism for itself. The new code adopts older rules that regulates the teaching and speech giving activities of a justice, caps the amount a justice could receive teaching ($30,000 per year) and includes a process as to how a justice can be approved to teach a course of instruction. These safeguards demonstrate that third – party review of a justice’s activities are possible. These safeguards should be expanded to more activities than simply outside teaching.
And, there are plenty of models out there that the Court can emulate. Current Senate and House rules have limitations on what gifts members and staffers can accept. The Senate in Section XXXV has a detailed framework of rules with no gift more than $50 subject to other situations. And the House has a very detailed gifts guide in their House Ethics Manual. What this illustrates is that most government institutions have gift guide restrictions to prevent the kind of corruption and loss of confidence that has stunned the Supreme Court this past year. If other government institutions are worried about the appearance of impropriety of gifts of more than $50 than the Supreme Court should follow the same logic to prevent gifts of trips and other perks that exceed the hundreds of thousands of dollars in value that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are believed to have received. Putting a cap on the dollar amount on what a justice could receive would be in line with what most government officials are required to abide by.
The new ethics code announced by the Court was a welcome first step but it does not nearly go as far as it needs to when compared to what other federal judges and other government officials have to follow. More is needed and the Court, and Congress, can add those additional safeguards if they should so decide. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Judicature Society – guide illustrating the ethical codes state judges are bound by.
- Brennan Center for Justice – a historical piece about an ethical and financial scandal that disgraced a Supreme Court Justice from the 1960’s.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Republican-based Anti-Abortion Groups are Losing State Battles Over Reproductive Rights
Republican-based Anti-Abortion Groups are Losing State Battles Over Reproductive Rights
Health and Gender Policy Brief #168 | By: Geoffrey Small | November 20, 2023
Photo taken from: bloomberg.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
Ohio has become the latest battleground to overwhelmingly vote in favor of abortion in the United States. 56.6% of Ohio voters approved a measure protecting reproductive rights on November 7th. This follows a pattern of Republican-held sovereigns, which include Kansas and Kentucky, to vote in favor of protecting abortions. States across the U.S. facing elections have upset Republican efforts to maintain the status quo in red states. The Democratic Party has consolidated their message to reflect public opinion, which indicate that the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. Republicans are struggling to maintain a consistent message, as anti-abortion activists have experienced infighting on how to administer laws post-Roe v. Wade. This analysis will explore how anti-abortion groups are losing the state battle, as reproductive rights organizations are declaring victories in Republican strongholds.
Policy Analysis:
Ohio wasn’t the only state to retaliate against Republican efforts related to abortion bans during this election cycle. The state legislature in Virginia has flipped control to the Democratic Party, after the November elections led to an upset for Republican candidates. Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin campaigned on a promise to sign an abortion ban if approved by the state legislature. Virginians responded by ensuring no abortion ban will be signed as long as the Democrats maintain legislative control. Democratic Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear also defeated promising Republican candidate Daniel Cameron by a wide margin. Republicans in Kentucky, who control a vast majority of the state legislature and other elected offices, are trying to understand why.
To understand how reproductive rights organizations and the Democratic Party have been so successful in recent elections, one can analyze what antiabortion groups are saying after the series of Republican upsets. Rev. Pat Mahoney is a prominent anti-abortion activist and chief strategy officer for Stanton Public Policy Center, which supports a network of anti-abortion clinics. He stated “hardly any Republican has handled this well,” noting that “they’ve been all over the map.” Mahoney explained “I live in Virginia. The state is doing well, the economy’s doing well, by all accounts. [Glenn] Youngkin is a relatively popular governor. Every ad I saw on television for every Democrat – I mean, a barrage of them – was how MAGA Republicans or pro-life anti-choice activists want to take women’s rights away. They were all about abortion.”
Mahoney’s statements reflect the Democratic Party’s unity on pro-choice and Republican disagreements on how anti-abortion laws would be administered. Multiple anti-abortion groups signed a letter to lawmakers stating “As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women is not pro-life and we stand firmly opposed to such efforts.” However, there’s a major rift when it comes to extremist abolitionist groups like Abolish Abortion, which was founded by Bradley Pierce, a Constitutional Attorney who filed a brief during the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade. Not only was he influential in helping pass draconian abortion restrictions in Texas, but he worked with Louisiana State Representatives in an attempt to pass a law that would allow prosecutors to criminally charge patients who receive an abortion as a homicide .
The message is clear for the Democratic Party, campaigning on a pro-choice platform will win elections. As Republican anti-abortion groups are fractured on how to handle their post-Roe v. Wade message, victories for Democrats and reproductive rights may be all but guaranteed.
Link to Donate: